tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC June 28, 2013 12:00am-1:01am PDT
40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day." if only things had changed that much. 40 years later, we are not as far along as the supreme court thinks. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. tonight on "all in" the blue revolution. i'll tell you why the great texas filibuster might have been just the beginning of something much, much bigger. plus, on a week of huge victories for progressive america, the choice for the republican party becomes more and more clear. change or die. spoiler alert, they don't appear to be choosing to want to change. and the cross-examination of rachel jeantel, reluctant witness in the trayvon martin case is a reluctant subject of national conversation.
why what people say about her says more about them than the witness. but tonight, we start with the uprising in the state of texas. an uprising that started last week when democrats and activists there began to mobilize against a restrictive abortion bill making its way through the texas senate. and that uprising has only gained strength. and if you want to know why, right now, people in texas are rising up and why it's not likely to end any time soon, let me tell you about texas governor rick perry's last 26 hours. at 6:37 p.m. last night, the state of texas executed its 500th, 500th inmate. a woman by the name of kimberly mccarthy, former cocaine addict who was convicted of killing her 71-year-old neighbor in a 1997 robbery. it is the 261st execution rick perry has signed off on as governor, far and away the most executions carried out by any governor in modern history.
in fact, rick perry has signed off on more executions in his nearly 13 years as governor than any other state has executed total in the last 38 years. in texas, which last night reached the mccob milestone of 500 executions has killed more than people than the next six states combined. what a burden that must be for one man to carry, to have presided over the deaths of so many people. >> your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. have you -- [ applause ] have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent? >> no, sir, i've never struggled with that at all. >> that was in 2011. since then, 27 more people have been put to death in texas on rick perry's watch. this morning after what was likely a good night's sleep, rick perry woke up and he headed to dallas to deliver the keynote
address at the national right to life conference where he reaffirmed that he's going to keep pushing senate bill 5, the draconian abortion restriction bill that state senator wendy davis, texas democrats and a ruckus group of ordinary people managed to stop tuesday night. >> what we witnessed tuesday was nothing more than the hijacking of the democratic process. [ applause ] this is simply too important a cause to allow unruly actions of a few to stand in its way. and that is the reason that i have announced that i am bringing lawmakers back to austin, texas, to finish their business. >> if you watched this show last night, wendy davis made it clear it was perry and his lieutenant governor david dewhurst who hijacked the democratic process. >> governor perry and lieutenant governor dewhurst led the charge in terms of a breakdown in decorum.
they have overridden and made a mockery of all of the rules that we run by in this state. >> this morning, rick perry went out of his way to take an incredible shot at the women who led -- woman who led the 13-hour filibuster that stopped temporarily the antiabortion bill. wendy davis. >> who are we to say that children born in the worst of circumstances can't grow to live successful lives? in fact, even the woman who filibustered the senate the other day was born into difficult circumstances. she was the daughter of a single woman. she was a teenage mother, herself. she managed to eventually graduate from harvard law school and serve in the texas senate. it's just unfortunate that she hasn't learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to realize its full potential and that every life matters.
>> the biographical details about wendy davis there are accurate, but i have now watched that clip, i don't know, half a dozen times and i still can't figure out what the hell he's trying to say. is the point that because wendy davis, herself, didn't have an abortion, that she should oppose abortion? wendy davis, today, responded to the governor. she said his statement is without dignity and tarnishes the high office he holds. they are small words that reflect a dark and negative point of view." rick perry seems to be doing everything in his power to elevate wendy davis, to transform the spark that has arisen in texas into a strong and committed movement. in fact, he seems to be relishing exactly that. >> and just remember this. the louder they scream, the more we know we are getting something done. >> rick perry is getting something done. something that no one has been able to do in texas for the last two decades. and that is bring a texas
democratic party that has been comatose for years back to life. and if that happens, if we see an insurgent democratic party reorganize, galvanize, mobilize and grasp its incredible demographic potential in the lone star state, well, then, simply put, the republican party, as we know it, is dead. joining me now is texas state senator laticia van de putte who represents district 26 which includes san antonio. she is the one who helped carry senator wendy davis' filibuster over the finish line when she did this on tuesday night. >> did the president hear me state the motion, or did the president hear me and refuse to recognize? >> senator, you are now recognized on the motion to adjourn. >> i do not wish to make that motion at this time, senator. at what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over the male colleagues in the room? [ applause ]
>> senator, thank you for joining me tonight. first, i want to offer my condolences on the tragic loss of your father in a car accident. i'm not sure if people realize that you actually had to rush back from his funeral to be there that night in the chamber for that vote. can you walk me through what it was like to be rushing back from something as horribly traumatic as that, into that chamber, into that moment? >> thank you so much for asking. it had been a very difficult few weeks for our family. we had lost our youngest member, my grandson, rex van de putte, who would have been 6 months, to sids just six weeks ago, then my father who was very healthy died tragically in a horrific car accident last friday. so his burial was tuesday. and late tuesday afternoon. i didn't know if i would have the courage to return to austin. after seeing what was happening
right after the funeral and when our family was gathering, i knew i must return to help fight mind dad was such an advocate for women, i needed to stand up for women because my daddy always stood up for me. >> senator, governor rick perry is basically saying this. he's saying, look, the polling in texas is on my side on this bill on sb-5. the democratic process is on my side because this is a republican conservative state. it's elected these big majorities in the statehouse and state senate. it elected me time and time to be governor. i'm just executing the will of the people here and what you're doing is engaging in essentially stall tactics, obstruction and tricks to stop that democratic majority, to stop that democratic will. what is your response to that argument? >> well, you know governor perry, bless his heart. as you know, sometimes he can forget really important things, and he can get confused about very important current events.
and the polls actually show not what governor perry is saying, but that 75% really would prefer for our state to focus on education and on jobs and on information like highways and water. and to leave these divisive issues to the wayside, to concentrate on what is really important. the other mistake, i think, that our leadership, the republican leadership, because it is a red state, has made, is to assume that because for years of redistricting manipulation where the districts are so solidly republican, that the only voters that matter are those that participate in a republican primary. i don't think they realized that there are other texans, and texans who are not primary voters who were so upset at what their government was about to do for the health care of women
that they came in masses, by the thousands, to the capitol, but their voices weren't heard until the very end. >> texas state senator laticia van de putte. thanks for joining us tonight. i really appreciate it. joining me now, evan smith, ceo and editor in chief of the "texas tribune." and one of the savviest observers of texas politics. evan, my first question to you is, you and i have talked before, and i follow texas politics relatively closely, actually. to outsiders, that night that happened on tuesday night, seemed like an amazing, dramatic moment. >> yep. >> was it that in texas that in the context of texas and texas politics, was it that the way it looked to us from the outside? >> oh, most definitely. you know, no democrat has won elections statewide in texas, chris, since 1994. democrats are in the minority. vast minority in both the texas and the texas senate. republicans have almost a supermajority in both bodies. every statewide elective office, the state is, as you said, not just red, it's blood red.
obama has done, president obama has done very poorly in the '08 election, worse in the 2012 election. democrats have had no action here for a very long time. it was the first moment, really going back to ann richards, that you saw the democratic party spring to life, the kind of periscope came up. we're actually here. the first individual figure in wendy davis to really get traction among the democrats. it was an amazing moment. i watched the legislature for more than two decades. it was like nothing i've ever seen before. >> he's the great paradox. there are about 10 million hispanic people living in texas. expected to rise close to 20 million by 2040. the number of white people is expected to decrease slightly by 2040. you're looking at a state that is tailor made to trend in a direction that would favor the democratic party. the gap between the potential of texas and the actual institutional state of the texas democratic party could not be wider.
>> right. the biggest issue, chris, on that, the turnout at the polls by the latino community has historically been significantly below the anglo community. percentage of eligible to vote citizens, latinos have very, very low turnout. you have incredible surge in population in the latino community, it's not translating yet into votes. the other thing is to assume when the latino majority as arrives as it will soon, to assume the latino electoral is any more monolithic than the anglo electorate. not that long ago, george w. bush was routinely getting 40% or more of the latino vote. it's not simply about waiting for the majority. democratic party, in fairness, has to speak to issues that attract latinos to the polls, get them motivated to turn out, and at that point you may begin to see the pendulum swing. >> they have to do proactive things and pick fights. i mean, you can't win unless you fight, and i think my question
to you is, there's now going to be another special session starting july 1 st. they're going to ram this through. i don't see any way the democrats stop it in that special session. what happens after that? >> well, you say they have to pick issues. in some ways the issues are chosen for them. you know, in some ways the best argument for the democrats to come back in the minds of a lot of these democrats is governor rick perry. >> right. >> that the abortion issue, the refusal to expand medicaid, the degree to which public education has been in the decline from a funding standpoint. kind of go down the list, check all the boxes. the issues that the democrats need to galvanize their people with are people handed to them by the other side. there is such a thing as overreach, and i think the democrats are imagining that the people in office right now may be handing them the opportunity to come back. maybe even a little bit faster than they want. now, you've got state elections in 2014 in which it's widely assumed rick perry will not run for re-election. we're going to see a turning of the mulch, as it were.
every statewide elected official at the top is going to not run again or run for a different office. >> and there's going to be a big opportunity at that moment. evan smith -- >> right, there's not a single democratic candidate other than wendy davis who's been mentioned as a possible statewide candidate. democrats may not be ready to come back. >> evan smith from the "texas tribune." thanks so much. all right. if you've been at work all day, you haven't been able to watch the george zimmerman trial. for the past two days a 19-year-old named rachel jeantel, key witness for the prosecution, has been testifying and it's resulted in a cultural clash inside the courtroom and all over social media. i'll explain coming up. frequentn but now, thanks to treating with prilosec otc, we don't have to suffer like they used to. [ bell dings ] ♪ [ horse whinnies ] getting heartburn and then treating day after day is a thing of the past. block the acid with prilosec otc, and don't get heartburn in the first place. we've sure come a long way. ♪
a big new development tonight from nbc news investigative correspondent michael isikoff on the ongoing investigation into the leaking of classified information about u.s. cyber warfare. sources telling michael isikoff that retired marine general james "hoss" cartwright, former vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has been notified he is under investigation for allegedly leaking information about a
for the last two days in the trial of george zimmerman, the prosecution's key witness has been on the stand. her name is rachel jeantel. she's the last person trayvon martin talked to before his altercation with george zimmerman on the night of february 26th, 2012. she was on the phone with martin, and the moments before
that altercation, an altercation which ended with trayvon martin dead. george zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the shooting and killing of trayvon martin. zimmerman has pled not guilty, claiming he killed martin in self-defense. rachel jeantel is in the unfortunate position of being caught in the middle of it. and even in direct examination, jeantel's testimony got off to a rocky start. >> and i know you grew up in a haitian family, so make sure that everybody can hear you try to speak as clear and -- >> can you repeat what your answer was, please? >> when defense attorney don west began cross-examination, what took place was an excruciating and at times, if i can editorialize, infuriating process by which the defense tried to impeach and impugn her. there's little doubt rachel jeantel is someone who never, ever asked to be in this position. wants no part in the spotlight. clearly is reluctant to be there, and has been forced to sit up there and take it and been made to feel badly about
herself while all of us watch. this is part of what that looks like. >> didn't you say that in your statement that the reason you got involved was because you thought it was a racial thing? >> what interview? >> we'll come back to that. sorry that you were inconvenienced, but we did not have the interview on friday because of scheduling issues. would you agree with that? >> you should have picked me up on thursday. >> so you realized, then, that you were the last person to have spoken with trayvon martin? >> yes. >> but you did not report it to law enforcement? >> no. i thought they were supposed to call you. call the person. i tracked the number down. see who was the last person if somebody got shot. do you watch "first 48"? >> i didn't hear you. >> do you watch "first 48"? they call the first number that the victim talked to. >> remember in the deposition we asked about this and we actually played the recording for you. >> yes, yes.
i had told you -- you listening? >> yes, ma'am. or maybe we can break until the morning. >> no. i'm going to leave town today. >> what's that? >> i'm leaving today. >> are you refusing to come back tomorrow? >> to you? >> are you refusing to -- >> we need to keep this a question and answer. >> the reaction to jeantel by court watchers has often been unkind or on twitter and social media, downright cruel and flat-out racist. many of rushed to her defense. michael denzel smith writing in "the nation" notes "rachel jeantel isn't a hollywood actress. she doesn't testify in court regularly. she's a young black woman missing her friend. she showed up to court to give all the information she had as to what happened the night he died. no matter what, though, rachel stood and defended herself and trayvon and, frankly, many other black youth against the condescension against silencing
and against the character attacks. for that she should be commended and thanked." that sounds about right to me. joining me now is john mcwhorter, professor of linguistics at columbia university. i'm so glad you're here. as i was watching this, i was thinking the whole time of what john mcwhorter was making of this. you're a linguist. you and i have had conversations about the linguistic bounty that is america and what we are watching in the courtroom over the last two days are two people from very different cultures, from very different linguistic backgrounds encountering each other while all of america watches. it's been an incredible thing to watch. >> it's been a little scary. sometimes it's like she's speaking hungarian and he's speaking cantonese. she's been articulate, just in a different kind of english than mainstream english. she's speaking black english. everything she says where you can see the twittersphere or
people i know thinking she's making a grammatical mistake. if a martian came down and the martian happened to be in south-central rather than in grand rapids, the martian would have as hard a time figuring out how this dialect worked as any other. she said in the clip that i had told you. many people are thinking, why is she using that? that's black english. my cousins did that when i was little. it's the narrative pluperfect. linguists talk about it. i think a lot of us will -- >> that's it. willful. thank you. that's the thing that has caught me here. i understand what she's saying. >> perfectly. >> it's like, this idea -- and in the courtroom -- let me play you this one. she's talking about him being over by the mailing area which reads to me perfectly clearly. check out this clip. >> yeah, he's going to leave the area where the mailing area at. >> say it again. >> he's going to leave the mailing area where he was at.
>> mailing area? >> yeah. where you get the your mail at. >> all right. i'll make sure that everybody understands what you're saying. did you say he said he's going to leave the mailing area where he's at? >> yes. >> everyone understood what she was saying. everyone understands the mailing area. >> i mean, especially nowadays when we talk about hip hop, most people under a certain age, and i'm at it, i'm close to 50, listen to black people. talking every day. it's called a great deal of mainstream american music. she's quite comprehensible. it's just that people don't want to understand her and the whole larger question. >> thank you. yeah, i think that's, to me, there was some kind of theatrics here. i want to, this other moment about when trayvon martin in her testimony, called, said he was being chased by or tracked by a creepy cracker which the defense has made quite a bit out of. take a listen. >> right. >> do you understand what i mean by the culture, the culture that you were raised in, culture you
live in? >> the area i was raised in you're trying to say? >> right. i'll say it this way. do people that you live around and with call white people creepy ass crackers? >> not creepy, but cracker, yeah. >> you're saying in the culture you live in, in your community, people call -- people there call white people crackers? >> yes, sir. >> i love the fact that she's like, yeah, we call them creepy crackers if they're creepy. like, and again, it was like everybody understands, everybody understands what this interaction is. what the subtext is trying to draw out some type of racial grievance for the jury. >> needless to say, i think given how the trayvon martin case went, there would seem to be some cause for some preliminary racial grievance for the poor boy to have had
somebody chasing after him for a reason he didn't know. we do know that's how it started. of course he might be refer to the person as a cracker because he's a human being. and since this week, we have heard that there are times when we might, perhaps, excuse some white people from using the "n" word. i've written about that, too. i think we can understand that cracker may have been an appropriate term at the time. >> john mcwhorter from columbia university. thank you very much. >> thank you, chris. a lot of people are beating up glenn greenwald for nsa secrets. their silence against cnn's pentagon correspondent and her reporting. i'll tell you why there's a double standard, next.
imagine for a moment that you're running al qaeda. that means you're spending a lot of time figuring out how to murder people. it also means you have kind of a hard job. because you're trying to manage this global terror network and you don't want the united states with its vast global policing and surveillance resources to be able to catch you. so if your job is running al qaeda, you have to be really, really careful about how you communicate with your employees. we know, for example, that osama bin laden didn't even use a cell phone. he used courier, paper messages, because he knew his communications could and very likely would be monitored. of course, some of his couriers apparently did use cell phones and that is part of what helped bring about his ultimate downfall. but let's say just for argument's sake you're heading up the new post-bin laden al qaeda and you're also terrible at your job. and so you're not at all concerned about your communications being monitored.
let's say you were somehow not aware of the spying capabilities and proclivities of the united states government. until, that is, you read in "the guardian" and the "washington post" earlier this month the nsa had been bulk collecting metadata of phone calls or even for a time bulk collecting e-mail data, as we all learned today in a new scoop. if you were the head of al qaeda and never occurred to you that american spies might be tracking your internet or phone records, sure, yeah, you'd probably read those articles and think to yourself, holy crap, if the americans can spy on us like that, i need to completely revamp the way i'm communicating with my terrorist henchmen. let's say you have a meeting and do just that, totally change up your ways, you stop plotting terror over google hangouts, you shut down your terrorist recruiting facebook page and start a tumblr instead. get rid of your verizon smart phones and sign up with a new carrier because you know the american government has probably been monitoring your communication through those means. you want to go somewhere elsewhere they can't see what you're up to. but what if someone in the u.s.
government tipped you off that they know that you've changed your habits. they know you're on tumblr now. they're still watching you. in fact, they're watching you so closely and effectively that they're watching you change your habits as you try to avoid being watched. well that is precisely what these theoretical hapless terrorists would have learned from reporting this week by veteran cnn pentagon reporter, barbara starr. >> now u.s. officials say other terrorist groups are reacting to these disclosures by snowden and very quickly also changing their communications methods. >> the article accompanying that report cites unnamed anonymous intelligence and administration officials, speaking in very specific terms about the ways in which the american intelligence community is able to observe terrorist groups as they change their communication patterns. the kind of information that i would hazard to guess is almost certainly classified. one of these unnamed sources, in fact, goes so far as to offer an
example of exactly the kind of thing the terrorists are doing now in order to avoid detection by u.s. spies. "the administration official offered an example of one concern. terrorists may be less inclined to communicate via clean e-mail accounts that have no links to them because they believe the u.s. government can track those." this article not only self-servingly advanced the narrative that the intelligence community would like us to believe the edward snowden leaks have helped the terrorists, but in doing so it could be seen as doing far more to concretely alert terror groups to what the u.s. intelligence community knows about them and their communications than anything published by "the guardian" or the "washington post." and, yet, somehow i have not heard members of congress calling barbara starr's reporting dangerous. or pushing for her prosecution the way some did when glenn greenwald reported the edward snowden leaks. >> greenwald says he's got it all and now is an expert on the program. he doesn't have a clue how this thing works. neither did the person who released just enough information to literally be dangerous.
>> i'm talking about greenwald. you have someone who blows secrets like this and threatens to release more, then to me, yes, there has to be legal action should be taken against him. >> peter king, as far as i know, is yet to call for legal action against barbara starr. she's certainly not been the subject for long, detailed hit pieces on her past personal life. though that is precisely what has happened to glenn greenwald who reported on the edward snowden leaks. i want to be very clear here. i do not know what helps or does not help the terrorists. i simply don't. i am certainly not saying barbara starr helped the terrorists by publishing a report. i don't think she did. any more than glenn greenwald did. and more importantly, i don't think the vast majority of people that you see opining on what helps the terrorists have any fricking clue what actually does or doesn't. it is a problem for this country and for the functioning of our democracy when glenn greenwald's leaked reporting is treated so differently than barbara starr.
when, with glenn greenwald, they're not designed to advanced pentagon's agenda, then we have calls for prosecution. when they are as with the barbara starr reporting, radio silence. there is a vast and growing web of secret government in this country, and it simply cannot be the case. it is not acceptable that the only things we know about it are the things the members of that secret government want us to know. because at the end of the day, it is on us. it is on all of us what our government does in our name. we'll be right back with #click3.
today the senate handed john boehner a loaded gun and told him he has two choices. kill his speakership, or kill his party. more on that coming up. but first i want to share the three awesomest things on the internet today. #click3 is back beginning with the presidential visit to africa. the president and the first family are embarking on a six
day three-country tour. the white house and first lady michelle obama joined instagram. late to the party but well worth the wait. both accounts posting photos and videos of the obamas travels including their incredible journey to senegal's goree island. mrs. obama sharing this photo of the door of no return where african slaves passed through on their way to north america. the solemnness of that occasion seen in these incredible and powerful "ap" photos, juxtaposed with the sheer joy of revelers greeting the american president and his family. ♪ amazing images all around. a reminder of how improbable and historic this moment in history is. the second awesomest thing on the internet today, some really terrific news coming out of the world of scientific research. the national institutes of health, the government agency charged with major biomedical studies says it will retire the
majority of its chimpanzees used for research. citing new scientific methods and technologies, the nih will retire all but 50 chimps out of a total of nearly 360 sending them to live out their golden years in a federal sanctuary. the retirees will soon discover the outside world is quite an amazing place. >> seeing the chimps step out into the yards for the first time and to be kind of faced with all of this immense space, where they just sit and look up and with this awe of amazement, like, there's no bars above me. it's just absolutely phenomenal to witness. >> that got me choked up. hooray for advancements in research. enjoy freedom, fellows. third awesomest thing on the internet, wendy davis media mania. there are gifts celebrating her overall badassery and gifts celebrates our reaction to her overall badassery. she's gotten a taiwanese
animation treatment complete with a floating ghost of ann richards. davis' new fans have a very important question on their minds. 13 hours and no trip to the lady's room? turns out davis was equipped with a catheter. how many other elected officials have employed the same tactics will filibustering? "mother jones" offers this informative guide. strom thurmond took the minimalist route with a bucket. one state senator used something called an astronaut bag. and an alderwoman had her aides surround her with a sheet and tablecloth while she relieved herself in a trash can. that's actual video of that happening. something to consider the next time you complain about your job. find all the links for tonight's #click3 on my website, allinwithchris.com. we'll be right back.
today while abroad on trip to africa, president obama had his first opportunity to address the week's monumental supreme court decisions. decisions that profoundly effect the coalition of citizens that he has woven together. i'm talking about people of color. young people. college educated white women. and the lgbt community that allowed him to overcome deficits among older and rural white voters. >> i might not be here as president had it not been for those who courageously helped to pass the voting rights act.
i think that the supreme court made a mistake in its ruling. because even though lawsuits can still be filed now after discrimination, if you don't have the structure of section 4 and section 5 in place ahead of time, the election may be over by the time lawsuits are filed or a court rules. and oftentimes it may be too late. >> when it came to the court's ruling on the defense of marriage act, the president praised the decision, but somewhat remarkably lamented the fact that it didn't even go further. >> the supreme court ruling yesterday was not simply a victory for the lgbt community, i think it was a victory for american democracy. because the supreme court did not make a blanket ruling that applies nationally, it's my personal belief, but i'm speaking now as a president, as opposed to as a lawyer, that if you've been married in massachusetts and you move
someplace else, you're still married, and that under federal law you should be able to obtain the benefits of any lawfully married couple. but, again, i'm speaking as a president, not a lawyer. >> all right. after that, then today after what has already been a whirlwind couple of days for the political legacy of the president, including his speech laying out a plan to help combat climate change, we witnessed historic vote in the u.s. senate. just hours ago. that approved the most significant overhaul of the nation's immigration laws in a generation. >> the ayes on this bill are 68. the nays are 32. the bill, as amended, is passed. >> yes, we can! yes, we can! >> those are yes, we can chants coming from the gallery. and this now is where the rubber meets the road for the
republican party. you see, because they are now face to face with this ascendant majority. this obama coalition that has won two national elections by fairly significant margins. they can either go down this road of chipping away at people's access to the polls, doubling down on white identity politics or find a way to broaden their coalition and make the grand old party more inclusive. the immigration bill heads to the house where republicans are at the crossroads. the values that unite the house republican caucus are the same ones that threaten to confine them to permanent minority justice. joining me now, baratunde thurston, columnist for "fast company" where he wrote this fantastic cover story about leaving the internet for 25 days which i definitely highly recommend. i recommend both the articles and leaving the internet once in a while. michelle goldberg, senior writer for "newsweek" and "the daily beast." josh, we have the immigration vote today. everybody is wondering, what's going to happen in the house?
karl rove has an op-ped in the "wall street journal" which i think is timed as a nudge to the house republican caucus where he says, "look, the reality is the nonwhite voting share of the vote will keep growing. if the gop leaves nonwhite voters to the democrats, its margins in safe congressional districts and red states will dwindle not overnight but over years and decades." there's a lot made of the census numbers that this was in 2012, the first year when the white population decreased while other racial categories increase. the writing is on the wall. like, everyone understands. everyone understands this immigration bill is just like a threshold issue for the republican party. so what choice do they make in the house? >> well, i don't think they have any really good options politically. >> they don't. you cannot emphasize that enough. >> and i think that's why the party looks paralyzed in the house. i don't know why boehner would be out there saying he's not going let the thing come to the floor without the support of the majority of republicans. so basically they have two options. they can block it from coming to the floor which will anger especially hispanic voters and
other parts of the democratic coalition and fire them up and be bad in 2014 or let it come to the floor and pass and then in reasonably short order you get 10 million new immigrant voters. >> well, not reasonably short order. i mean, decade or -- >> a decade is -- these people hope to still be in congress in a decade. but the thing is that allowing this bill to pass is not going to fix the republicans' problem with nonwhite voters. their principle problem with nonwhite voters is on economic issues. >> right. >> so in order to broaden beyond nonwhite voters, they have to evolve on both immigration and a lot of other issues they don't want to evolve on. >> it's a starter, a threshold thing. if they kill it, it definitely does not help them particularly with latinos. >> there's a problem with short term and long term. they're also looking toward 2016. to me this has seemed like a strange fantasy they were going to pass this thing. of course it's going to die in the house, of course this house is not going to pass this thing. >> i don't think that's true. >> really? >> there's an interesting
analysis in "real clear politics" that says the most reasonable path forward for republicans in 2016 is doubling down on the white vote. they think the democrats have not yet reached -- he says it's arguable the democrats have not yet reached a floor with the white vote. >> right. >> basically if you increase white resentment or apathy, increase white -- >> or white motivation. >> and the apathy of minority voters. >> right. >> or disenfranchise minority voters, he said if the african-american vote goes down from the levels it has in recent years, that's how the republicans win. >> this is the remarkable thing, baratunde. this is the debate happening in conservative circles and republican party politics, do we double down on the white vote or not? >> i've never been on a program where the word cracker and -- has been used so much. >> cracker is a census category. >> the level of news that's happened this week reminds me of the end of the school year when the professor tries to cram every lesson into the final weeks. it's kind of a whirlwind.
the thing you talked about doubling down is resentment is definitely something i've noticed. i see the republicans stuck with angering their heritors. young republicans have written, we suck, stop ruining it for us, don't give us this deficit of bad ideas we have to inherit and try to dig out of. they've created this party through their media and hater campaign of very angry elect hat. >> that's a great point. it's not just that they are responding to anger. they stoke it. the two things reinforce each other. they paint themselves in a corner. >> words like that. >> they're painted into their own petard. i want to talk about the doma decision. i want to give you a little sci-fi counterfactual history of how yesterday might have played out if the white house had made a different decision, right after this break.
we're talking about the growing obama coalition of voters and problems facing the republican party trying to compete with the changing elect rat. here with baratuned thurston, michelle goldberg, and josh barro. i want to run through this counterfactual. the white house had an opportunity when that case was filed in court. i believe in 2011. they had defended the law, doma, previously on another case in massachusetts. and they had a decision to face. do you defend the law or do you not? it is a very, very big deal for the executive, for the department of justice not to defend a statute that is good federal law. it does not happen that often. it's a big deal when they do. the choice they made not to defend it, if you rerun the history of yesterday in which they defend that law not only does yesterday look different, yesterday was an unequivocal victory for barack obama, the democratic party. they were able to tweet celebration. he was able to comment. nothing tainted about it. not only does that go out the window, but the president coming
out for marriage equality during the election year goes out the window, too, because there's no way he could have done that if they are in court at that moment defending doma. so the entire trajectory of the relationship of this president, the democratic party, and the coalition, the obama coalition to lgbt people is completely transformed. >> not completely clear if the decision comes out the way it does. >> that's actually a really good point. >> you know, fighting it. >> you know, i actually think that it would have been easier for the president than you said it to switch his position around on it because advocates of marriage equality were just so enthusiastic to have the president on their side. it's been completely forgotten he was against gay marriage 15 months ago or something. if they decided to defend the law, they could have dropped out at the appeals court level or could have changed his position and said, gee, i wish we weren't defending the law. i think there was tremendous willingness to forgive and forget with the president on this issue. >> i think it further cemented this, and it was opposite of 2008 when everyone was incredibly ecstatic but for prop
8 in california. >> awkwardness in the room. >> exactly. >> even if it wouldn't have hurt, it certainly makes a better story. >> right. >> with this white house, probably with this country, and certainly what freedom and justice needed was a good story. we had a lot of mixed messages this week, even out of the court with the voting rights act, the trayvon martin case. courts in america and galleys have been very in flux. >> it's been kind of a remarkable week watching the process of the filibuster in texas, the courtroom in which rachel jeantel was testifying and the interns running out of the supreme court and the kind of, like, it was just a very dramatic last few days in terms of, like, how democratic conflicts and arguments get litigated. what are the processes that we have -- >> this is national civics week. >> do you think it's possible, why -- is the republican party more or less worried about where they are on lgbt issues or immigration? what can they jettison more easily? >> i think they can jettison the --
>> i think what the republican party desperately wants for this issue to go away. every time they lose a court decision, every time they lose a vote in that state, that means one more state they never have to talk about gay marriage again. >> nine years ago they wanted to put it on the table, now they're happy to have it off the table. >> exactly. the immigration issue, the issue doesn't go away once you vote on it. the republican base will still be angry about it. you'll still have ongoing policy issues. >> you're also going to bring in 10 million or 11 million people. >> it's much more significant. >> brian fisher announced an opponent of marriage equality, "on our knees for america" to pray, to pray for america. there are going to be dead enders in the republican base. >> there's also a sense of i think capitulation. you're in some ways seeing what you saw, to go really far back, the scopes monkey trial. >> like a waterloo. >> the history of evangelicals in america.
baratunde thurston and michelle goldberg and josh barro. that's "all in." "the rachel maddow show" starts now. >> did you say on his knees? >> i didn't. google it, america. it's called "on our knees for america." >> god bless you chris hayes. thanks to you at home for staying with us this hour. amazing. it frequently seems as if congress can't do anything. today they did. the united states senate really did pass an immigration reform bill. this is a huge deal. you could tell this was a huge deal by watching the way in which they physically cast their votes. typically when the senate votes, they wander around and chat each other up and the place kind of